TA9-22025

TA9-22025

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to provide sufficient credible and corroborative evidence for the central allegation (being identified on a donors list and therefore sought by Burmese authorities); a material unexplained inconsistency and absence of evidence that persons of his profile are targeted mean there is not even a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97 risk on removal.

Citation
TA9-22025
Parties
Claimant: XXXXXXXXXXXX; Respondent: Minister
Court
Refugee Protection Division
Jurisdiction
Canada
Judgment Date
27 October 2011
Procedural Posture
Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)
Outcome
Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
Legal Topics
Convention Refugee, Person in Need of Protection, Credibility and Corroboration, Political Opinion Nexus, Risk on Removal, Return to Country
Source Language
English
Immigration Law Refugee Law Administrative Law Convention Refugee Person in Need of Protection Credibility and Corroboration Political Opinion Nexus Risk on Removal +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

XXXXXXXXXXXX

Claimant

Minister

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Refugee Protection Claim (rpd) Under IRPA / Decision (reasons and Decision)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether claimant is a Convention refugee under s.96 IRPA
  2. 2 Whether claimant is a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA
  3. 3 Credibility and corroboration of claimant's allegations

Ratio Decidendi

The claim is rejected because the claimant failed to provide sufficient credible and corroborative evidence for the central allegation (being identified on a donors list and therefore sought by Burmese authorities); a material unexplained inconsistency and absence of evidence that persons of his profile are targeted mean there is not even a serious possibility of persecution or a s.97 risk on removal.

Court Disposition

Claim rejected; claimant is neither a Convention refugee under s.96 nor a person in need of protection under s.97 IRPA